This rhetoric was obviously painted with a large brush, and it's not entirely true, just like the rhetoric on Republicans aren't entirely true.
Other than both of the extremes, everyone is pretty much somewhere around the middle.

The problem with what's happening though IMO , the "left" have taken over what it means to be "liberal". There's no doubt that true
liberals have only good intentions in their heart, and every decent human being has a bit of liberalism in them, but they have been deceived and
manipulated by the left for so long they don't even realize it. We might as well replace the word "left" with just "anti" because that's all
they really are, anything thats not Trump. The left prey on the big hearted, compassionate but weak minded to keep this narrative alive and all the
confirmation bias amongst themselves and from the entire elite leftist conglomerates only reinforce their movement.

This image that has been painted on Trump is absolutely not true. He's far from perfect, but he's even farther from this demon they try to make him
out to be and if you actually took a step back and dropped all the emotion and bias, and looked through rational lenses you would also recognize this.
The left has such a grip on this narrative and only continue to push it to more extremes by the day and the brainwased continue to keep it alive.

At the end of the day, I think it's pretty safe to say most people pretty much want the same things in life. It's actually the left that are
purposely creating divide to keep their agenda alive while blaming Trump for everything and the constant demonization just allows them all to accept
it without even really thinking about it.

And to be frank, if the left haven't exposed thier true colors to you by now, you are who I'm talking about in this thread. Anybody with a rational
bone and clear thought in their body will easily recognise what is really going on.

I'm not left, right, up or down, I'm not democratic or conservative and I'm not liberal or republican. I'm a human being that isn't burdened with
bias, or clouded with emotion. I'm a human being that doesn't let the past dictate my future and the future dictate my fears. I'm a rational human
being that isn't influenced by other people's opinion and I'm able to individually think for myself and because of all of this, it has pushed me to
where I am. It is what it is.

I put this in rant because I'm not here to debate this. This is truly how I feel and what I see and wether you agree with me or not, and I know many
will disagree.. I feel the view from where I'm standing needs to be seen.

Fun fact... FDR actually stole the term "liberal" because he didn't want to use the term "progressive", which is what he obviously was but he thought
the term sounded too third-party. Liberal was not a description OF a party before FDR.

He also needed a name to describe the Republicans, so came up with "conservative", which at the time sounded old-fashioned and out of touch... think
Whigs.

Which is why I try, when posting, to make the distinction between Liberals and Progressives.

It's like we've been programmed since birth to pick a side and to demonize the other by any means. Whether it be political party, sports team,
school, city, country, race, gender we are being manipulated to not being objective to the group we associate with and only to the opposition.

It is time for all good Liberals to come to the aid of their party! Distance yourself, NOW, from the poison in your midst. You'll be doing your party
a big favor.

I'm curious as to the percentage of Democrats who fully support the ideology of the progressive movement.

For the record: I've been screaming foul since Nixon. I'm not a Republican. I didn't think I could be as sickened by anyone as I am by the Bush crime
family. That is until the Clinton's true colors started emerging...

There's no doubt that true liberals have only good intentions in their heart, and every decent human being has a bit of liberalism in them...

I absolutely agree here. Deep down there's a spark of liberalism in every reasonable American. This also goes back to my view that in a serious time
of need or national emergency we Americans would rally together against true evil again.

I don't agree with everything government does or what the left or the right believe in but I would fight to protect our sovereignty with each of you
when the time comes. I'll always have that spark of true liberalism in me.

originally posted by: The GUT
It is time for all good Liberals to come to the aid of their party! Distance yourself, NOW, from the poison in your midst. You'll be doing your party
a big favor.

:

In other words continue with the partisan politics that has infested this country and is well on it's way to destroying this country? I
don't know if you're just being facetious or if you believe the tripe you posted in the above quote but partisanship, couldn't care less if it's
Republican or Democrat, is not the path that's going to give us anything any better than we already have. Smh.

Fun fact... FDR actually stole the term "liberal" because he didn't want to use the term "progressive", which is what he obviously was but he
thought the term sounded too third-party. Liberal was not a description OF a party before FDR.

Fun fact? I think you meant "alt fact" because none of that is remotely true. You might want to crack open a few books. In fact, I can easily disprove
this based on something I was rereading recently from John Dewey.

Liberalism has long been accustomed to onslaughts proceeding from those who oppose social change. It has long been treated as an enemy by those
who wish to maintain the status quo. But today these attacks are mild in comparison with indictments proceeding from those who want drastic social
changes effected in a twinkling of an eye, and who believe that violent overthrow of existing institutions is the right method of effecting the
required changes. From current assaults, I select two as typical: “A liberal is one who gives lip approval to the grievances of the proletariat, but
who at the critical
moment invariably runs to cover on the side of the masters of capitalism.” Again, a liberal is defined as “one who professes radical opinions in
private but who never acts upon them for fear of losing entree into the courts of the mighty and respectable.” Such statements might be cited
indefinitely. They indicate that, in the minds of many persons, liberalism has fallen between two stools, so that it is conceived as the refuge of
those unwilling to take a decided stand in the social conflicts going on. It is called mealy–mouthed, a milk–and–water doctrine and so on.

Popular sentiment, especially in this country, is subject to rapid changes of fashion. It was not a long time ago that liberalism was a term of
praise; to be liberal was to be progressive, forward–looking, free from prejudice, characterized by all admirable qualities. I do not think,
however, that this particular shift can be dismissed as a mere fluctuation of intellectual fashion. Three of the great nations of Europe have
summarily suppressed the civil liberties for which liberalism valiantly strove, and in few countries of the Continent are they maintained with vigor.
It is true that none of the nations in question has any long history of devotion to liberal ideals. But the new attacks proceed from those who profess
they are concerned to change not to preserve old institutions. It is well known that everything for which liberalism stands is put in peril in times
of war. In a world crisis, its ideals and methods are equally challenged; the belief spread that liberalism flourishes only in times of fair social
weather.

He also needed a name to describe the Republicans, so came up with "conservative", which at the time sounded old-fashioned and out of touch...
think Whigs.

Also horribly wrong. Same Dewey source as above:

He brushed aside, almost contemptuously, the conservative school that found the source of social wisdom in the customs and precedents of the
past.

And if you read his earlier works (1920) you'll see him using the terms in the very same way. All of the terms in question predate FDR. "Conservative"
goes back to what? the late 18th century? It's been in use in American politics in some fashion since at least the mid-19th century. The association
is and has been: conservative - traditionalist - right-wing.

On the surface, these liberal observations seemed true, especially since Progressivism and Darwinism, imported in the 19th century from Europe,
had come to dominate American intellectual life, diminishing the influence of all other traditions of thought.

Thinkers on the Right lamented the condition of conservatism and the seemingly irresistible tides against it. To many, like F. A. Hayek, it seemed as
if the whole world was turning Left. Seeking support for his new conservative magazine, William F. Buckley Jr. conceded that the Left easily dominated
the realm of ideas in America and that “the few spasmodic victories conservatives are winning are aimless, uncoordinated, and inconclusive.”[5]

There the matter might have rested, with liberals gloating and conservatives lamenting, except for the publication of a remarkable book by a young
assistant professor of history at a Michigan “cow college.” The unknown historian was Russell Kirk; the book was The Conservative Mind: From Burke
to Santayana (1953); and modern American conservatism has never been the same.

All serious political movements, Kirk argued, draw their strength from an earlier body of belief: 20th century socialism from Karl Marx a century
earlier, radical liberalism from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Kirk’s “source of wisdom” for modern conservatism was the 18th century British
politician and philosopher Edmund Burke.[6] The Conservative Mind described the existence of a coherent, connected tradition of conservative thinking,
going back at least two hundred years.

Please defend your claims because I'm really interested to know how you came to believe what you do.

I'm sure you are aware that FDR and Dewey were long-time friends before the election of 1932. In fact, Dewey helped FDR on a lot of issues, since they
were both Progressives. The TERM liberal and conservative have been used since before we were a country to describe a political viewpoint, btw.

However, they were not used to describe a PARTY before 1932. Dewey was the one who brainstormed describing FDR and the Democratic party as LIBERAL
because FDR felt that the term Progressive was too third-party and he also didn't want to be openly associated with Wilson and his failures as a
Progressive. So they just stole the term Liberal because it sounded more acceptable. It is typical of Progressives to steal terminology and attempt to
change the meaning of words to suit their purpose because it's really hard to sell a Hegelian Utopia to people who can think for themselves, so they
have to instead achieve their goals through subterfuge and outright lies.

Dewey also pointed out that since they were re-branding Progressivism, they needed to re-brand their opponents as well, in this case Hoover and the
Republican party. So they chose conservative and ran with it. The election results showed how well re-branding worked.

As far as your crack about me cracking open some books, I learned this from a REAL book that is not at hand since it is in the family library, 1200
odd miles from here. So I'll have to source it at Easter, my next trip there.

Odd that you just now got to Liberalism and Social Action... I would have thought you would have read that years ago.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.